Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Larentalia

The story of Romulus and Remus being suckled by a wolf is not a meaningless fable. The founders of every state which has risen to eminence have drawn their nourishment and vigor from a similar wild source. – Henry David Thoreau

As I mentioned in “Whore Goddesses” (my column of one year ago today), “In ancient Rome today was Larentalia, the festival of an apotheosized courtesan named Acca Larentia; she was referred to as the ‘most noble whore’ and was sometimes associated with Lupa, the she-wolf who nursed Romulus and Remus.” Acca Larentia was an Etruscan who lived in the early days of Rome and, because she was childless, left her entire fortune to the Roman people. But ancient mythology is often unstable, with varying traditions, and the story of Acca Larentia is no exception; some writers claimed that her fortune was acquired through marriage at the end of her career. And still others state that she was the wife of the shepherd Faustulus, who discovered Romulus and Remus being suckled by the she-wolf and adopted them. But though these accounts may seem contradictory, it is possible that they are all partial reflections of a larger truth which contains clues to the real story of the founding of Rome.

Yes, I said the real story; just because the early history of Rome and the lives of Romulus and Remus are wrapped in legend and myth does not mean they did not exist. Radical atheists make the same argument in order to deny that there was an historical Jesus, and neofeminists to deny the well-substantiated existence of sacred prostitution; 19th-century archaeologists used such reasoning to argue that Troy was only a myth until Schliemann discovered its ruins. And though fantastic tales are told about the lives of Alexander the Great, Harun al-Rashid and George Washington, nobody doubts the historicity of these leaders. So it’s entirely specious to argue that the twins’ reality is disproven by stories of divine parentage or other mythic elements, especially since most of their story is highly credible and even mundane.

Romulus and Remus were exposed by their granduncle Amulius, who had usurped the throne of Alba Longa from his brother (the boys’ grandfather) Numitor. But they were found in the wilderness by a she-wolf and nursed until Faustulus discovered them. That seems a rather straightforward myth; feral children suckled by animals have been a staple of fantastic lore from Enkidu to Tarzan. But in this case, the story may be less myth than symbol, code or misunderstanding. Though I’ve never uncovered an adequate explanation for the association, lupa was also a common Roman slang term for “whore”; some Roman streetwalkers even made a sort of pun on this by making wolf-cries to attract customers. The Roman word for “brothel” was lupanar, the fertility festival which later evolved into Valentine’s Day was Lupercalia, and Valeria Messalina’s stage name was Lycisca (“wolf-girl”). Even in modern Italian, the word puttana can be translated as either “bitch” or “whore”. Consider also the incredible tolerance for and multiplicity of prostitutes in ancient Rome, the number of her goddesses (including Bona Dea, Flora and Fortuna Virilis) who were worshipped by acts of prostitution, and the fact that Aeneas, the legendary progenitor of Rome from whom both Romulus and the Caesars were descended, was the son of the great whore-goddess Venus. Yet, in most ways the early Romans were a very straight-laced, disciplined, moral people…the sort who generally don’t think much of hookers.

Put all this together with the varying traditions about Acca Larentia, and I think we have the basis for a hypothesis: What if the abandoned princes weren’t nursed by a literal she-wolf at all, but by a prostitute? If that’s the case, all the traditions might be true: Acca Larentia, a wealthy courtesan, married Faustulus, an equally-wealthy gentleman farmer (a “shepherd” in the sense that he owned lots of sheep, not in the sense that he herded them for someone else). He discovered the exposed children and brought them home to his ex-prostitute wife, who had lost her own child and had milk to spare; they raised the boys as their own and financially backed them when they set out to found a city. Faustulus then predeceased Acca Larentia and she left the entire estate to Romulus – and therefore Rome – upon her death, after which the grieving king declared his beloved foster-mother a goddess and established traditions honoring her former profession. Over time, the story became either garbled or purposefully disguised by prudish historians and/or priests, and though all the elements were still present they were mythologized until nigh-unrecognizable. Obviously, we’ll never know if any of this is true, but it certainly explains the confusing and apparently-contradictory traditions about Acca Larentia, sheds a bit of light on a linguistic mystery and proposes a credible explanation for ancient Roman society’s love affair with harlots.

12 Responses

it just bothers me that even though among pagans the goddess of love is the patron of prostitutes and even in some myths she is a prostitute(lshtar,Isis)the patriarchical societies of the time didnt show any respect for whores and marginalised them as if they were judeochristians instead of sex positive pagans.venus was the mother of the supposed founder of rome(at least according to virgil) and yet romans were trying to shame whores by forcing them to wear specific clothing and saying they would corrupt children.classical era greeks had temple slaves instead of free willed preistesses in corinth as if it was shameful for a free citizen to honor aphrodite.maggie,are you aware of the early matriarchical societies like crete to consider prostitution(both secular and sacred) acceptable?i have found findings that support it but other scholars deny the existence of non slave prostitution in such societies.

The “scholars” who deny the existence of sacred prostitution in antiquity are nothing more than con artists employing sophistry to advance a neofeminist political agenda, as explained in my column of last July 28th.

i dont doubt the existence of sacred prostitution at all.i just wonder if at matriarchical societies prostitution whether sacred or not was acceptable,sth that wasnt in the patriarchical ones,even though some of their goddesses were connected with it.some schollars(although i doubt them,since they seemed as if they were trying to prove that prostitution is a product of the patriarchy)say that only slaves prostituted in matriarchical societies like crete,obviously stating that free women thought they were better than this.

I don’t think the way prostitution is viewed (as either “sacred”, a “sin”, or merely “tolerated”) has anything to do with which gender controls the reigns of politics.

I think the whole idea of a “patriarchal” society is a bit overblown. I’ll tell you – a pure patriarcal society would condone prostitution and plural marriage. A GREAT example of one was Brigham Young’s theocracy in Utah when he was governor in the 1850’s. Beautiful – women couldn’t even gain entry to all the wonders of heaven unless linked directly with a “holy” man within the church.

I suppose another example might be Islamic societies … which have this strange from of prostitution via temporary marriages – along with plural marriage.

I have never understood why people EVER considered the US a patriarchal nation. It never has been – though women may not have had the right to vote at one time it doesn’t mean that they didn’t exercise political influence in other ways.

In fact, though I do not consider myself a Christian I will offer this – that the religion itself has allowed for a lot of expression of women and has tempered men to listen to women on many things. When women demanded the right to vote finally – they got it. Also – throughout my travels abroad I have visited many different cultures who consider American men to be “dogs” who jump at a woman’s slightest whim. I don’t believe this of course, but nor do I run from it. Everyone’s a slave to someone else – I’d much rather be a slave to something with curves and a soft voice. 😀

Rome wasn’t called the Great Whore for no reason. A lot of ancient scholars had a similar interpretation of Rome’s beginning.

And not just the Sabine women were abducted and seduced, and then married to give Rome a founding stock for the otherwise breedingless men.

A common criticism leveled against Rome was that its original female population had been refugees, slaves and prostitutes, and the Romans were notoriously proud of this fact. They tolerated and encouraged prostitution in many ways and this was seen as integral to the Roman character; it’s why the “proper” messalina was tolerated in large part, not just because she was rich and a de-facto royal family member. Actual persecution of whores was distasteful.

When it was done, it was usually naked self-interest by middle-class wives or upper class women; though this less so, because it was presumed that female slaves were acceptable targets for male slave-owners, and ditto for slave-boys and men and women. Banging the pretty slave was presumed. Wives had nothing to say about this, because it simply wasn’t interesting. Men abroad were also expected to pick out select victims or slaves and do what they wanted. What was at issue was the … issue. Only carriers of the Gens, or the proper family name, were acceptable.

When Cleopatra was called the Whore of Egypt, it wasn’t because she “seduced” Caesar and produced a son by him; had she just promoted Caesarion and stayed away from Marc Antony, the Romans couldn’t have leveled such complaints. Instead, she was called a whore for going after both powerful Roman politicians.

At the time, the irony of this insult was not lost on Romans, who saw it as a naked attempt to deny legitimacy, as they had no illusions about the “propriety” of any aspect of Rome or its history.

What the Romans did have was a proper respect for ethnic cohesion and its connection to power. This was Cleopatra’s real offence, even as the people were embracing monopolies on power by a few families.

It was the entirely hypocritical Senatorial class that made such claims of Cleopatra; the masses may have called her a whore seducing Rome, but it was the “whore’s” attempt to usurp power (like a whore killing a legitimate wife and moving into her palace) that offended them.

Romans had no basic problems with whores. They were recognized, encouraged, taxed and daughters were even pushed to use their youth to get as much money as possible before it was too late; and men very often married ex-whores (who weren’t permitted to touch another man, of course).

Whores were just women.

Romans often considered female nature essentially whorish, and saw this as a basic fact of human nature. Men were rapacious and dangerous, hence the need to tightly control them. Whores and fighting were a great way to harness men.

In a real sense, you can call it unenlightened, but the Romans understood the basics of human nature far more than we do.

It can be an amusing past-time to compare various societies as to their patriachral vs matriarchal traits. It is also useful, imho, to compare weakness vs strength for societies as a whole because too much weakness is correlated with disappearing from history.. The early Romans did a good job of organizing a highly fit social structure that was very successful at shoving aside and/or flattening various hippie cultures (like Ptolemaic Egypt) they went up against. The many Harlots in the Roman mix did not appear to make them into a loser-nation.

Any streetwalkers in my D&D campaign will now use wolf-calls to attract customers. There will be rumors that they are the main transmitters of lycanthropy. Don’t know that there’ll be any truth to that, but it will be the rumor.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".